What the Islamic Invaders Did to India. by Rizwan Salim... What the Islamic Invaders Did to Indiaby Rizwan Salim12 Nov, 2007On the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition (December 6, 1992), it is important for Hindus (and Muslims) to understand the importance of the event in the context of Hindustan's history, past and recent, present and the future.

Savages at a very low level of civilisation and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. But many Indians do not seem to recognise that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth's most mentally advanced civilisation, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.

It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorising, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realised by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilisations of all times.

Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilisation have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan's artists and artisans.

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number-not hundreds but many thousands-of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

The wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the 8th century to well past 1700 AD a period of almost 1000 years. Every Muslim ruler in Delhi (or Governor of Provinces) spent most of his time warring against Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and the west, and almost every Muslim Sultan and his army commanders indulged in largescale destructions of Hindu temples and idols. They also slaughtered a lot of Hindus. It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art. The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilisation feel upon encountering a superior civilisation of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu "infidels" to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorportated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala "mosque" in Dhar (near Indore). Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic- to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigour of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan.

Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta caves off Mumbai harbour) gives proof of the ancient Hindus' religious fervor.

But the Kailas temple also indicated a will power, a creative imagination, and an intellect eager to take on the greatest of artistic challenges.

The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mindbody disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.

It is not just for "political reasons" that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicate d and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes m a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.

This article was published in Hindustan Times on December 28, 1997____________ _________ _________ __

Rizwan Salim is a reviewer of New York Tribune, Capitol Hill reporter, assistant editor of American Sentinel.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

CPM Branch Secretary elected as main priest of Mallikapuram temple in Sabarimala

Kayamkulam KERALA: CPM's apathy towards religion, especially towards Hinduism is not news. We had several comrades suspended from the party and taken action against for conducting house warming ceremony with Ganapathy Homam. Many comrades have to cover their head while they need to visit nearby temples.

Looks like CPM who failed to fulfil their agenda to destroy Sabarimala by nominating hardcore Anti Hindu Sudhagaran as Devaswom Minister is now trying to play the game again by nominating a CPM leader as the Main priest of Mallikapuram temple in Sabarimala.

Dhananjayan Namboothiri Kaduvinal Branch Secretary of CPM in Vallikunnam in Allapuzha is elected as the Purapedda Santhi of Mallikapuram temple.He is currently employed as priest in Kannanamkuzhi Sri Krishna temple under the Devaswam Board.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Born in 1947 at Pune, Shri Ramesh Patange did his M.A. with Economics and Politics from Bombay University. He is currently the Editor of the Marathi weekly?VIVEK? published from Mumbai. A senior activitist, thinker and ideologue of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, he is deeply involved in the Dalit problems andis a leader and one of the founders of the Samajik Samarasata Munch (Social Integration Forum). While he has a number of remarkable articles at his credit,his recent Marathi book ?Me Manu Ani Sangh? (I, Many and Sangh) is a graphic account of his unique and wonderful experience in Sangh. A run-away successin Hindi also, the Marathi book has gone for fourth printing within a period of one year.

This booklet brings out thoughts expressed by him in a meeting of senior RSS officers on the vital subject of ?Outlook of the Sangh towards the Non-Hindus?.

?THE SANGH PARIVAR AND THE NON-HINDUS"

When we discuss the attitude of Sangh towards the non Hindus, the first question that immediately arises in mind is whom should we call non-Hindus? Thereare sects and movements in Hinduism who call themselves non-Hindus. For instance Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are unwilling to be included among Hindus,in Hinduism and the Hindu society.

It is mainly the lure of the special protection and special rights and privileges available to religious minorities of this country which is responsiblefor this situation. As an extreme example, the case of the Ramakrishna mission can be cited here. This Mission went to the court of law on the plea thatthey should not be included in the Hindu society since they were Ramakrishnaites and not Hindus. The plea was of course rejected by the court in a rulingof historic importance. The court said that the followers of the Ramakrishna mission were Hindus. From the RSS point of view, we regard all the sects asHindus. They are all different branches of the Sanatana Dharma and though their modes of worship are different, they are offshoots of the same cultureand therefore culturally they are Hindus. Cultural ties bind them together.

In the legal definition which Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar has given in the Hindu Code Bill, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are included among Hindus. The Hindu CodeBill is therefore applicable to them all. If any of them challenges it, then the onus of proving that the Bill does not apply to them rests on the concernedsect. Dr Ambedkar looked upon them all as different facets of Hinduism.

Then who are the people in our country who can be called non-Hindus? The Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews are the religious groups following their ownrespective method of worship easily qualify for inclusion in the category of non-Hindus. From among them the bulk of the Jewish population migrated toIsrael after that country came into existence. The number of Jews now living in India is very negligible.

The Parsees are found on the West Coast of the country and their habitat is limited to Gujarat and Bombay. Though the Parsees are not Hindus and have theirown method of worship, they have identified themselves with the nation in terms of culture, language and dress styles. They have made rich contributionto the country's patriotic struggles with foreign powers and were pioneers in the area of industry and trade. They have not raised any problem before thecountry in the name of religion.

"In 1943, the suggestion (to ask for separate registra- tion in various legislatures) was emphatically spurned in a representation signed by nearly 2000leading Parsis, and affirming that `out interests are safe in the hands of sister communities'. Recalling this epi- sode, Shri R K Sidhwa, a prominentParsi member of the Constituent Assembly, said that if minorities were encouraged to think in terms of permanent safeguards, `there will be a kind of perpetualinstinct in the mind of the minority community representatives that the safeguards are to remain forever, and it will be diffi- cult for these small communitiesto come nearer to major communities.... The ultimate phase of political life of all Indians should be one nation, no community."

The same unfortunately cannot be said of Muslims and Christians who have a turbulent history of expanding their religions by proselytisation. The Musliminvaders converted large number of Hindus by brute force. The Christian missionaries followed suit. The stories of terrorism and atrocities perpetratedby Muslims and Christians while forcibly converting Hindus in Bassein and Goa chill the spine even today. This history will always be present in our mindwhile thinking of these religions. Nobody can wish it away.

We have to comprehend the problems of Muslims and Christians which are the problems of non-Hindus. The erstwhile Hindus who were converted to Islam andChristianity not only were forced to change their modes of worshi. They had also to change their dress, their names, their culture, their value systemand their lifestyles. Their conversion, had it been purely religious, would have been confined to their mode of worship as had happened in the case ofChina. When China embraced Buddhism, only the mode of worship of the Chinese people changed. Their dress habits, their names, their language, their social,cultural and moral values continued to be the same. Here, in our country, the conversion to Islam and Christianity did not mean only change of faith; itsimultaneously meant change in nationality, and that was the root cause of all their problems. According to Dr. Ambedkar by joining Islam or Christianity,the Depressed Classes would `not only go out of the Hindu religion, but also go out of the Hindu culture..... Conversion to Islam or Christianity willdenationalise the Depressed Classes'. (D H Keer, Dr Ambedkar, Life and Mission (2nd ed.),pp 278-9, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1962.)

Ours is an ancient and enduring national civilisaation . We call it the Hindu civilisation. It covers modes of worship and prayer, philosophy, religion,culture. They all are comprehensively called Hindu. When our 'converted brothers' who were like us before conversion, take anti-national stands, it createsgrave problems. The change in dress habits, languages and values of life after conversion produce fissiparous tendencies which in turn are followed bydemand for separate states. Demands are voiced for secession from the country. An important aspect of our country's history is that whenever Hindus inany of its parts are pushed into minority, that part or province secedes from the country. Afghanistan, Baluchistan, North-West provinces, West Punjaband East Bengal broke away from India because Hindus there were pushed into minority by Muslims. The same scenario is emerg- ing in Kashmir and North-East.Muslim majority areas in the country pose a threat to the unity and integrity of our country. We have made constant efforts to awaken our people to thisex- tremely serious danger. These efforts have prompted the so-called secularists in our country to conduct vile propaganda against us, purveying falsehoodsand innuendos that we are anti-Muslim and anti-Christian.

We inherit a rich and ancient civilisation called the Hindu civilisation. We have our own distinct way of life, customs and traditions, philosophy and literatureand religion. We call this comprehensive civilisation the Hindu nation. When a convert from Hinduism to Islam or Christianity takes a hostile stand againstthis civilisation, it created a plethora of problems. Our history indicates that in the provinces where Hindus are rendered in minority there developsdivisive and secessionist tendencies. The most salient instance in point is the Christian majority districts on north-east borders. Kashmir has Muslimmajority and the Kashmir problem has over the years developed frightful dimensions.

It is necessary to arouse and awaken the people to this serious danger notwithstanding the propaganda by secularists that we are anti-Muslims and anti-Christians.The problem of Muslims and Christians is not merely a problem of faith and mode of worship. Their modes of worship and philosophy may be different. Theymay worship Allah or Christ, their faith, purely religious faith is no concern of ours. Hinduism accepts multiplicity of the mode of salvation. In Vivekananda'swords, Hinduism is Parliament of Religions. According to Hinduism, even the crudest and most disorganised worship of any deity ultimately goes to the Absolute.

Guruji Golwalkar too has laid repeated emphasis on this point in his articles and interviews. In an interview given to Dr Gilani, he says, "According tothe philosophy and teachings of Hinduism, all people following different modes of worship like Muslims, Christians and others are equal. Realisation ofthe Absolute is the universal goal of all religions and every man has the right to seek salvation in the way he chooses. It is not that Hinduism aloneis the way to salvation. I would like to tell you here an anecdote relating to the former Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Dr Chandrasekhar Bharati. Once anAmerican approached him and said, "I want to change my religion by conversion to Hinduism. I am not happy with Christianity".

The Shankaracharya replied, "I don't mind your converting to Hinduism. But tell me, why are you fed up with Christianity? Have you ever been an honest andsincere Christian? First, try to be one. Practice Christianity for some time without any reservation and if you still remain unhappy with it, I will makeyou a Hindu. We are not itching to drag non-Hindus to Hinduism. We do not believe in conversions. Conversions take place because of political and pecuniarybenefits it brings. We abhor conversions. We say, this is our way of life. Accept it only if you are convinced of reaching the goal by going along withit."

The Christian and Muslim problem transcends the barriers of faith and worship and tends to create social and political tensions in an anti-national perspective.It is not that only we are aware of it. Many luminaries have underscored this great danger. I will give here two instances. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar in hisbook, 'Thoughts on Pakistan', has said in clear and unambiguous terms that if Muslims were allowed to remain in India they would be a perpetual sourceof menace to us and therefore the Muslim population in India should be transferred to Pakistan. Dr Ambedkar was to give a lecture on this subject at theCaste Eradication Association Conference scheduled to be held at Lahore in 1936, but since the meeting did not take place, the speech was published inthe form of a book, viz., `Annihilation of Caste'. Tribals and animists, he further said, would not pose any problems for the Hindu society. They are neglectedby the Hindu society and are forced to live like savages. That was bad. But if these tribals and animists were converted to Islam or Christianity theywould be a menace to Hindu nation. History tells us that whenever in any region of India, non- Hindus emerge as a majority, may they be Muslims or Christians,that region developed secessionists tendencies and even seceded from India as in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In North- East, large scale conversionsto Christianity have posed a similar problem and about Kashmir the less said the better. We can't ignore the fact that Muslims and Christians nurture anti-national tendencies.

To bring non-Hindus into the mainstream politics is exceedingly a difficult task. In the past such efforts were made particularly in the field of spirituality.Guru Nanak and Sant Kabir strove for such integration, but their efforts proved futile. Whether Kabir was a Hindu or Muslim is a matter of controversy.However, his devotees are Hindus and Muslims do not follow his teachings, nor do they revere him.

In the political sphere, Mahatma Gandhi made efforts to bring Muslims in the mainstream. He advised Hindus to regard Muslims as 'younger brothers' and concedeto them their various demands. This attitude of Gandhiji is known as the appeasement policy. It was a grand and resounding failure. Muslims' demands wenton growing and culminated in the partition of the country. In the context of this appeasement policy, Guruji Golwalkar used to refer to the story of Bakasurin the Mahabharata. Bakasur's demands constantly grew and the time came when he required a cartload of food, a man and a bull. Finally this appeasementcame to an end when Bhim destroyed Bakasur. Problems are required to be solved on our strength, not by abject appeasement. Bakasur's story need not betaken literally. There is no question of destroying everybody who makes demands on us. The moral of the story is that we should not resort to spinelesssurrender to solve such problems.

Muslims who had supported the demand for Pakistan remained in India. The Christian movement for secession did not have complete success. It was difficultfor these people to join the mainstream nationalism. The concept of secularism emerged to accommodate them. This concept was however confusion worse confoundedfrom the word go. Was it eschewing of the religion or accommodation of all religions? Was it pragmatism or materialism? That was at the theoretical level.At the practical level, in actual operation, it came to mean appeasement of minorities. Some people floated phrase majority communalism in this context.Majority communalism is a ridiculous expression. Majority in any country forms the core of the respective nation. How can it be communal? Secularism gavethe right of veto to minorities. Minorities used this veto to oppose uniform civil code, family planning, ban on cow slaughter, ban on religious conversions.Because of this use of veto, the basic problems remained unsolved.

There have been many efforts and experiments to tackle the problem of non-Hindus at the national level. The efforts were design and implemented by thosewho call themselfs secularists.

"In the first place, it should be admitted that every possible attempt to bring about an union between the Hindus and the Muslims has been made and thatall of them have failed." (Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8 p 305.)

New experiments are now very much warranted. We should all bear one important thing in mind. Now there is a force called Hindutva. Henceforth this problemwill have to be tackled by the Hindu society in the context and perspective of Hindutva. Hindutva is now a force to reckon with in this country. It occupiesa top position in the social and political reference books. It occupies a position of priority in all walks of national life. The political transformationwill occur in this country on the basis of Hindutva only. All national problems will have to be solved with reference to Hindutva and the Muslim and theChristian problem is on the top of the list.

When we consider the Muslim and the Christian problem, three different solutions appear before us. They are 1) to massacre them 2) to drive them out ofthe country 3) to convert them all to Hinduism by an act of Parliament. These methods appeal to different people in different ways. They cite the examplesof Bosnia or some countries in Africa where ethnic cleansing was sought to be effected by violence and massacres. People who want these types of methodsin our country are negligible. Massacres are totally alien to the temper of Hinduism. Violence and bloodshed do not fit in the Hindu religious outlookwhich sees God in every living being. We cannot therefore even think of the brutal methods mentioned above.

It is inconceivable to even think of driving out non-Hindus from this country. They belong to the same Aryan race and their forefathers lived in this country.Their racial and cultural roots are deep in the soil of this country. There are very few non-Hindus who have come from other countries. It would be perfectlyjustified if they are sent back to their countries. The question of driving out Indian Christians or Indian Muslims simply does not arise. They are partof this land. Paris, whose roots are in present-day Iran are accepted as honourable citizens of this country. There is no reason why Hindus will not givethe same treatment to non-Hindus who have temperament.

Mass conversions of Muslims and Christians are beyond the pale of practicability. Doors of course should be kept wide open to those who want to return toHinduism, their original religion. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad at its session at Prayag has passed a resolution that Hindus converted to other religionscan come back to Hinduism. The idea of compulsory reconversion to the Hindu fold should however be discarded. Procedures should be simplified for conversiononly of those who out of their free volition wish to return to their ancestral religion. Others should be allowed complete freedom of faith and mode ofworship and efforts should be made to assassimilate them in our cultural and national main- stream with their religious freedom intact.

What is the need of thinking of this problem from the Hindutva point of view here and now? Thinking about the matter we have to keep three points in mind.

Our civilisation is inclusive and comprehensive. From time immemorial it has absorbed and assimilated countless thought pro- cesses, religious sects, philosophicalnuances, races, castes and languages. This process of absorption continued till the advent of Muslims and Christians. Unfortunately the Muslims and theChristians did not assimilate in our cultural life. This was our cultural defeat. The formation of Pakistan was not only our political defeat but moreseriously also a major cultural re- verse. We are proud of our cultural heritage and to strengthen and enhance it is our bounden duty. The cultural defeatsshould spur us to greater and greater efforts to bring non-Hindus in our cultural mainstream, to assimilate them in our great and glorious civilisation.

About our cultural tradition, we must bear in mind that the population of non-Hindus in our country is 16%. That means among every 100 Indians, 16 personsare non-Hindus. It is not in our interest that majority of those 16 non-Hindu people are hostile to our culture and they seek inspiration from foreignlands. Their hostility to our cultural tradition will produce permanent tensions, conflicts, riots and will involve threats to life and property. Democracyhas come to stay in our country and in a democratic form of Government all citizens have equal rights, adult franchise and right to contest for legislativeseats. The dependence of foreign countries on the part of Muslims and Christians will create conditions of political instability and it will not be inthe interest of anybody. In the light of these three points we must chalk out a strategy to tackle the problem of non-Hindus from the Hindutva point ofview. We must take into account our own strength and social and political environment around us. Today we are occupying a centre of power and non-Hindusfor this reason may seek a dialogue with us. In July, 1996, some Muslim intellectuals had a similar dialogue with Sudarshanji. The reports of this dialoguehave appeared in all newspapers and also in Vivek. You all must have read them. This dialogue in a way indicated that non-Hindus are now in a mood to tryto comprehend thoughts and attitudes.

In view of this analysis we will have to undertake only certain tasks in hand. First and foremost to educate the people we will have to educate and trainup our own people, swayamsevaks, workers, karyawahs in the perspective of the problems of non-Hindus and the needs and techniques to absorb them in ourcultural mainstream. In educating the Muslims we will have to break the bubbles of their three illusions viz. 1) The global Islamic fraternity (Pan-Islamism)2) They were once rulers of this country and 3) The Congress or the Janata Dal will protect them.

Pan-Islamism or Islamic brotherhood is a great illusion. Massacres of Muslims took place in Bosnia, American bombers pulverised Iraq, Russian forces invadedAfghanistan and Pakistani Army organised progroms of Bangla Muslims. No united Muslim resistance was seen. Muslim unity is a mirage; it will ever remaina mirage. Muslims' outlook is not global but purely national. Although there are many Muslim countries, each is proud of its own heritage, and its prepareto defend it. So is the case with Christians.

Muslims think that they have ruled this country for some time. That is not true. There were Turks, Afghans, Iranians and for a long period Mughals who weremasters in this country. They fought among themselves. The Muslims in India today need to remember that they were converted to Islam by Muslim rulers ofyore.

The third illusion of Muslims relates to political parties. No political party in India can extend effective protection to Muslims. Only the Hindu societycan provide protective cover to Muslims. Political parties tend to exploit them for their political advantage and subject them to squalid bargaining. Vote-bank politics is extremely dangerous for Muslims.

"It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secu- lar state, not because one-fifths of the population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian, and, therefore,obviously has a vested interest in secular constitution, but because nine out of ten Hindus do not believe in violence against the minorities. If all theHindus had been zealots, no law-and-other machinery in the world could have prevented the massacre of Muslims who are scattered in villages and towns allacross the country." M J Akbar, India - The Siege Within. (Penguin, UK, 1985, p 24)).

Christians too need this type of enlightenment although among them the separatist tendencies are not as pronounced as they are among Muslims. ConvertedChristians have attraction for Western cultural traits, languages, dress and life styles. They are taught to despise and run down Indian culture. Foreignmissionaries are enemies of local Christians. They by various intellectual tricks and chicanery, strive to sow the seeds of disloyalty and separation amongChristians. There is need to explain this to Christians without mincing words.

While seeking to enlighten Muslims and Christians in this way, we should tell them that the change of religion does not change their forefathers, ancestorsand their culture. While conceding to converts freedom of modes of worship they should be told in no uncertain terms that they should not change theirdress form, their language, their cultural traditions and their life styles. G M Saheed, a leader from Sind, used to say that his national hero was notMohammed-Ibn-Qasim, the first Muslim invader of India, his national hero was Dahir, the Hindu king of Sind who was killed by Qasim. He also repeatedlysaid that he was Pakistani only for 40 years and Muslim for 1300 years, but he was a Sindhi for 5000 years.

A the cultural level joint programmes need to be organised. Mutual visits to each other's families and households would also be a cementing factor. Culturecreates harmony and binds men to one another. Cultural programmes develop common cultural outlook. It would go a long way in bridging the cultural chasmsif festi- vals like Id, Holi and Xmas were celebrated at the cultural level.

Social and humanitarian service is an important means of forging unity. We have a spirit of service and we undertake numerous relief works in calamitiesand to alleviate social distress. Service to the sick and ailing has provided very cheerful experiences. Such services are offered to Christians and Muslims,wherever the need arise.

The structure of a society is shaped by leadership. Leadership is of three kinds. Political, religious and intellectual. Political leadership can be dividedinto three types; born leadership, leadership produced by circumstances and leadership foisted on society. Among Muslims leadership is either foisted onthem or it is produced by circumstances. No farsighted leader emerged among Muslims in this century. Mohammad Ali Jinnah's leadership was the handiworkof the British and the Congress. The life of Jinnah requires deep study.

"Ever since Mahatma Gandhi decided to support the obscurantist and revivalist Khilafat Movement in the Twenties all politicians have continued to woo theMaulanas and the Muftis. It is time the nation decided to support and encourage a new and forward-looking leadership among the Muslims." (Muslim leadership:Died, 6 December 1992. Rest Without Peace. Sultan Shahin. Asian Age, December 7, 1996.)

Efforts will have to be made to produce national leadership among Muslims. Religious leadership should emerge from among the respective people themselves.Intellectual leadership must be invested with nationalist thoughts. Communists and secularists shaped intellectual leadership among Muslims to facilitatepropagation of their ideologies. Barring a few exceptions like Muzaffar Hussein and Wahiuddin Khan there are no nationalist intellectual leader among Muslims.

The responsibility of different organisations in the parivar is enormous so far as the problems of non-Hindus are concerned. According to us, the interpretationthat Hindutva means anti- minorityism is completely wrong. But we will have to prove this through our actions. Our meaning of Hindutva must be shown throughour programmes, and thought by the member institutions in the Sangh parivar. The Sangh work through Shakha is limited to the Hindu society, at least today.At present there is no plan to accommodate non-Hindus in the Sangh Shakha. At present there is no need has arisen for such a plan.

The member institutions in the parivar have to accept the terminology of their particular fields. Even though Hindutva is the basic ideology of all institutions.It has to be presented according to the needs of the specific terminology. Presentation of Hindutva and its phrasing will change from field to field. Yetour image in the society will be of Sanghwalas.

While working in the parivar fields, the respective identities of the constituents must be taken into account. The concern of the Akhil Bharatiya VidyarthiParishad (ABVP) is students. ABVP looks at them as students. It does not discriminate between Hindu and non-Hindu. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) concernsitself with the workers. Therefore there the identity as a worker gains priority. The BMS does not inquire whether the worker is a Hindu or non-Hindu.BJP, thinking about the government will look at the people as citizens of the country. It also does not differentiate between Hindus, Muslims, Christians.

Since every field is recognized separately, the Hindutva ideology has to be expressed in such a way that all the people can be carried with it; that itcan protect the common interests of all. This work is going on for decades in the Sangh Parivar. Time has come to proceed forward with more effort anddevotion. Harmony will be possible only through the Sangh Shakhas. This is our experience. Yet, Samajik Samarasata Manch is established keeping in mindthe need of the hour. Some Sangh workers have been asked to pay special attention to Dalits. Similarly organisations in the parivar should pay specialattention to non- Hindus. They must to be brought closer with efforts through special contacts.

We will have to exhibit the correct Hindutva through our behaviour. Only thoughts do not change anybody's opinions. Therefore, Hindutva will have to manifestnot only through intellectual demands but also contacts, cooperation and cohabitation. The Hindutva manifesting through our behaviour will bring aboutthe right psychological transformation. There are a number of examples of such transformation in parivar work.

Finally, I will tell you an enlightening story. The other day I was talking on this subject to Ramanbhai Shah of the BMS. There is a union worker calledShaikh. Earlier he was in a communist trade union and now has shifted to our bandwagon. A communist told him, "you have gone to dangerous people. Theywill throw you out into the sea". Shaikh replied, "I have been with you for several years, but I never got the affection, prestige and honour I have receivedhere".

"But your flag is green and theirs is saffron. What about it?" the Communists queried.

"What of it?", replied Shaikh. "When an orange is green in colour it is sour but when it ripens into saffron it is sweet".

Thursday, October 14, 2010

No chief minister started his tenure with so much goodwill within his state and all over the country as Omar Abdullah in 2009. It is a pity that this was frittered away in so short a time, thanks first to the flip-flop over the so-called Shopian rape and murder case in 2009 and to the stone-pelting in 2010. Having interacted with his legendary grandfather, and more closely with his father, I had earnestly wished that he be successful.

Nowadays we do not have political leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri who as railway minister resigned owning moral responsibility for a major train disaster. The trend now is to disown responsibility and pass the buck. We need not hold against Omar his version of events in his address to the state legislature on October 6. I would even praise him for boldly asserting that he is not a puppet of the Centre, often alleged by separatists in the Valley for CMs of the state. As a duly elected CM, he functioned with due independence. Yet there are two facts which cannot be ignored. Till the evening before Omar was sworn in as CM, it was being said that the party preferred his father for the job. Farooq Abdullah categorically stated on a media channel that he would be taking the oath as CM next morning. Something happened in Delhi that night and Omar became CM the following day. During the stone-pelting crisis, there was widespread opinion in the state and outside that Farooq would not have allowed things to go out of control. It was widely felt that Omar must go, but he survived because of a lone helpline from Delhi.

One should make allowances for Omar being young with little experience in state politics. In 2008, his uncalled for and misleading emotional outburst in Parliament during the Amarnath controversy — "Jaan Denge par Zamin nahin Denge" — only fuelled the agitation in Jammu. He must have been under tremendous strain for the past few months and this should not be ignored while commenting on his recent address to the Assembly. However, some of the issues raised by him are disturbing from the national viewpoint. The record must be set right. Pandering to separatist sentiments will not help build political support. It will only whet the appetite for secession.

Omar's statement that Kashmir acceded to India and, unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh, did not merge with India, has an unfortunate connotation. Over 500 Princely States merged with India. Mentioning only Hyderabad and Junagadh is making insinuations, in line with Pakistan propaganda. There was a common Instrument of Accession for all Princely States acceding to India. Hari Singh was facing a very critical situation. Pakistani invaders were approaching Srinagar and he had fled to Jammu. He desperately needed India's help and was hardly in a position to make any stipulations. He duly signed the instrument. This was fully supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular leader of Kashmir. Later, it was also ratified by the Kashmir Constituent Assembly. At the time of signing the Instrument of Accession, letters were exchanged between the Maharaja and Mountbatten in which special provisions were sought and accepted. Letters do not have the same legal validity as a formal instrument. Yet Article 370 of the Constitution ensures that the provisions agreed upon were duly upheld. In these circumstances, the hair-splitting distinction between accession and merger is meaningless. It may be mentioned that in the earlier two centuries many Princely States, including Kashmir, acceded to the British Crown but the people of those states were not given British nationality. It was refreshing that during the nuclear debate in Parliament in 2008, Omar rightly won accolade for asserting his Indian nationality.

Omar's irritation over Kashmir being described as an integral part of India was uncalled for. That has been our national stand and not that of any particular party as such. Neither his father nor his grandfather ever contested this. On February 22, 1994 the Indian Parliament passed a unanimous resolution asserting that Kashmir is an integral part of India and directing that Kashmir territory illegally occupied by Pakistan be liberated. The National Conference representative in Parliament supported that resolution.

Much is being made by Omar and his party of autonomy. The fact is that Kashmir enjoys more autonomy than any state in India but has the least autonomy below the state level. A regional political imbalance persists and is sought to be perpetuated by the embargo on delimitation of constituencies. For 49,725 voters, Kashmir has one MLA but Jammu has one MLA for 66,521 voters. This means that despite having 1,77,153 more voters, Jammu has nine MLAs less in the legislature than Kashmir. Whereas Panchayat Raj functions in every state, it is yet to be established in J&K. The Right to Information Act has not yet been made fully functional in the state. In the name of autonomy a reversion to the pre-1953 constitutional status is sought. This will entail removal of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is also a demand for an elected governor from the state and doing away with IAS, IPS and other Central services. The changes effected through due process of law prescribed by the Constitution, and ratified by the state legislature, are sought to be scrapped in the name of autonomy. These changes were endorsed by the Indira-Sheikh accord. They also received the people's support in the Sheikh's overwhelming victory in the 1977 state elections, regarded by all as free and fair. It is strange that Sheikh Abdullah's progenies, who attained political power for being his descendants, now want to undo what he did in the interests of the state and are chasing a mirage of autonomy. It is also pertinent that Central per capita aid is the highest in Kashmir, many times more than some other states in the country. Removal of the jurisdiction of the Comptroller and Auditor General would mean absence of financial accountability. Omar has sought regional autonomy for Jammu and Ladakh regions and has urged splitting them into sub-regions of Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, Kargil and Leh, which would virtually be a division on communal lines. It is interesting that the Valley is not required to be split into the plains and mountain regions, obviously because of commonalty of religion.

The need in J&K is to restore order, remove governance deficit, commence political dialogue and meet the legitimate aspirations of all stakeholders in the state, within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It must not be lost sight of that the separatists constitute a minority in the state. Their influence is generally confined to the Valley, excluding the Gujjars and Bakherwals, living in the mountains. The recent stone-pelting agitation was confined to the Valley, without any Gujjar or Bakherwal participation.

- The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.

The Babri masjid was built in 1528 at Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, the governor of Ayodhya at the time. He built it adjacent to the Ram chabutra, which is held sacred by the Hindus. This was a clear deviation from the Islamic principle. According to Islam, the places of worship of two religions should be built at a considerable distance from each other.

When Caliph Omar visited Jerusalem in AD 638, he wanted to offer his prayers. At that moment, he happened to be in the Church of the Resurrection of Jerusalem. The Christian bishop told him he could offer his prayers inside that very church. But the caliph refused. He said that he would offer his prayers at a stone's throw from the church. If he offered his prayers right there inside the church, it would create a controversy in the future. The Muslims of later generations would say that they would build a mosque there because their caliph had offered prayers there. Notwithstanding this historic example, Mir Baqi built a mosque adjoining a Hindu sacred place. This was bound to create problems.

In 1949, some Hindus placed three idols inside the Babri mosque. Unable to manage the crisis this created, the Muslims reacted: their failure to adopt the prophetic principle in this regard started an unending controversy between the two communities.

At the time of the Prophet, in the first quarter of the 7th century AD, idol worshippers had placed 360 idols in the premises of the Kabah, Mecca. But the Prophet never reacted. He simply ignored the situation and tried to change people's hearts. And the result was that, within 20 years, Meccans abandoned idol worship and became the followers of the Prophet. Then those Meccans themselves removed the idols from the Kabah without any confrontation or bloodshed.

In 1991, during the prime ministership of Narasimha Rao, the Indian Parliament passed a legislation called the Places of Worship Act, 1991. According to this Act, the government of India was bound to maintain the status quo of all places of worship on the Indian soil as it stood in 1947. But there was an exception that of the Babri masjid of Ayodhya. The Act maintained that the Babri masjid issue was in court, so the government would wait and it would be its duty to implement the verdict of the court when it was given.

This Act was a most reasonable one and Muslims should have accepted it as such. But they rejected it outright and resorted to street demonstrations. The demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992, was nothing but the culmination of this negative course of action adopted by the Muslims. At that time i said: "Babri Masjid ko Hinduon ne toda aur Musalmano ne usko tudwaya." (The Hindus demolished the Babri masjid but Muslims provoked them to do so.)

The Muslims subsequently took the very impractical line that the masjid should be rebuilt on the same spot. At that time, i said that the rebuilding formula was totally unrealistic; Muslims should accept the alternative formula of the relocation of the mosque.

It is a well-known fact that the relocation formula has been adopted by Arab countries. When these countries wanted to replan their cities, they found that there were many mosques that were obstacles to city planning. They did not hesitate to relocate such mosques. I said at the time that Muslims in India ought to adopt this same formula and accept the relocation of the Babri mosque. But again the Muslims refused.

Now, after the judicial verdict on September 30, 2010, the Muslims are generally saying that this verdict is contrary to their hopes and they will challenge it in the Supreme Court. But this is not going to solve the problem. It is an emotional reaction to the verdict and not a well-considered response.

Suppose the Muslims refer the issue to the Supreme Court and suppose it issues a judgement in their favour. Even then it will not solve the problem. The Muslims themselves set a precedent in 1985, which is enough to predict the situation as it will unfold.

In 1985, the Supreme Court issued a judgement in the Shah Bano case, which ran counter to Muslim aspirations. So the Muslims refused to accept the judgement. They took to the streets and the government was compelled to pass a new Act. The Hindus would certainly say that it was now their turn to refuse the verdict issued by the Supreme Court.

The only solution to this problem is for the Muslims to decide to put a full stop to this issue. If they put a comma, then there will be no end to it. We have lost 60 years by putting comma after comma and now this is the last chance to bring closure to the issue so that the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims may be normalised. And this full stop means either leaving it to the government to implement the verdict or agreeing to the relocation of the Babri mosque. There is, in reality, no third option.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

THAT China too has its Kashmir and problems with Islamist separatist identical to India's Kashmir is not widely known. 'Xinjiang', actually pronounced as 'Sinkiang' for postal purposes, is China's Kashmir. Xinjiang actually shares borders with Ladakh in India's Kashmir. But unlike Kashmir it is not a small area. . Its size is 1.8 million sq km; almost one-sixth of China; half as much as India. India's Kashmir measures some 2,65,000 sq km. Of which some 86,00 sq km is under Pakistan; some 37,500 sq km under China; the balance, 1,41,000 sq km, is with India. The disputed part of India's Kashmir, some 45,000 sq km, is less than one hundredth of Xinjiang. So China's Kashmir is physically 100 times bigger than India's and therefore its problem too is bigger. Yet many do not know about it.

The reason is that China prevented Xinjiang, its Kashmir, from becoming an international issue like India's Kashmir. Xinjiang, which had a majority of Turkish Muslims (Uighurs) in 1949, had a short-lived state of East Turkestan. China invaded it, crushed it, and won back its territory. The name Xinjiang literally means 'old frontier returns to China'. See the contrast. A year earlier, in 1948, India almost won back most of Kashmir from Pakistan which had invaded it, but voluntarily offered and turned it into an international issue. It was India not Pakistan, which went to the United Nations; made it an international issue. It is struggling to say it is a bilateral one. Now, on to how China handled Xinjiang, its Kashmir and integrated it with its mainland. Xinjiang has a population of 20 million plus. The Uighur Muslim constitute 45 per cent, other Muslims 12 per cent and Han Chinese 41 per cent. What was the Han population in Xinjiang in 1949? Just six per cent. In six decades it has risen by seven times. This change did not occur by itself. China did not just trust army or administrative control of its territory in Xinjiang. It trusted only its people. It ensured that the Han Chinese slowly began populating Xinjiang. The result is self-evident. But the 41 per cent Han Chinese population does not include defence personnel and families, and unregistered migrant Chinese workers.

Xinjiang was once known for a variety of agricultural products, but now, for more. It GDP rose from $ 28 billion in 2004 to $ 60 billion in 2008. It per capita GDP (2008) was $ 2,864, almost the same as the national average. It has large deposits of minerals and oil. The oil and gas extraction industry in Xinjiang is booming; it has a pipeline to Shanghai. This sector accounts for 60 per cent of Xinjiang's economy. With a vast area, huge resources, and sparse population, Xinjiang benefits China more than the other way round. In contrast the economic cost of India's Kashmir is very high. It receives a per capita Central grant of Rs 8,092, while for other Indian states it is just Rs 1,137. If the grants are given directly by money order each Kashmiri family of five would receive Rs 40,460 every year.

Still, the Uighur Muslims are unhappy with communist China. The World Uyghur Congress led by Rebiya Kadeer, a businesswoman based in Germany, is fighting for the freedom of Uighurs. There is violence and terror in Xinjiang like in Kashmir but not on that scale thanks to Pakistan's ISI being friendly to China as common cause against India. The Uighurs are therefore not getting any support from Pakistan. Yet militancy is growing. There were terror strikes in Xinjiang on August 5, last year, just three days ahead of the Beijing Olympics, killing 16 policemen. On August 11, when the Olympics was in progress, attacks took place near Beijing in which 11 people were killed. And on July 6, there were huge riots between Uighur Muslims and Han Chinese in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang resulting in 184 deaths and over 1,000 people injured. Most of the dead and injured were Han Chinese.

See how the Chinese reacted to the July 6 riots. President Hu Jintao, who was to attend the G-8 meeting, flew back seeing the depth of the crisis. His government declared war on 'three forces', namely-separatism, extremism and terrorism'. It banned Friday prayers in Urumqi mosques and told the Muslims to pray from their homes, something no other country would do. China has also pointed to al-Qaida for the trouble.

Yes, China does have problems with Islamist separatists, extremists and terrorists. But it has, by diplomacy and action, ensured that it remains an internal problems, unlike India, which has on its own made Kashmir an international issue. China has also changed the religious and political demography of Xinjiang by ensuring that 41 per cent of the province's population is non- Muslim.

Instead of working to change the demography in favour of India as China has done, the Indian government could not even prevent the expulsion of Hindus from the Valley. While Xinjiang is half filled by Han Chinese, Kashmir has been cleansed of Hindus. The result is that India has to defend Kashmir with the help of the army instead of the people.

Had India followed the policy the Chinese adopted in Xinjiang, conquering Kashmir back instead of contracting under Article 370, which prevents Indians in other places from migrating to the Valley, today Kashmir would have demographically integrated with India.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Navratri is the nine day period of worship beforethe festival of Dassera. Read about the significance of this time.

Navratri is a combination of two words. 'Nav' means nine while 'ratri' means night. Therefore, this celebration is literally translated as 'nine nights'. The celebrations begin onthe first day of the month of Ashvin according to the Hindu calendar. They culminate in the festival of Dassera, on the tenth day of the month. As per the Gregorian calendar, Navratri always falls in the month of October. The exact date differs from year to year though.

India is a country of festivals and celebration. It has a very rich historical and cultural background. Each Indian festival has a proper meaning, reason and significance behind its celebration. Fun and enjoyment are the aspects of the festivals, which sets the festive mood. Navratri, as the name suggests, means nine nights. It is one of the important Hindu festivals. It is dedicated to the worship of Goddess Durga, the deity of Power. Like other festivals of India, Navratri also has a significance and meaning attached to it. Each day of the nine-day festival are dedicated to the worship of different forms of Goddess Durga, which unfolds the religious importance of the occasion. Go through the following lines to know more about the significance of Navratri festival.

Why Navratri is Celebrated

The festival of Dassera is celebrated to worshipthe goddess Durga. She is the embodiment of Devi, or the supreme goddess. The form of the goddess Durga is said to symbolise creative energy and the feminine body. This form of the goddess has nine aspects. Navratri therefore is dedicated to the worship of these aspects. Each form or aspect of the goddess has its own day dedicated to it.

TheNavratri celebrations are devoted to the worship of the Eternal mother, which has its origins in the Vedas. Durga is also considered to be a combination of the Trinity of goddesses. They are Saraswati, Parvati, and Lakshmi. During Navratri, these three main goddesses are worshipped as well. The central theme of Navratri though is the triumph of good over evil.

Significance of Navratri

The First Three Days of NavratriThe first three days of Navratri are devoted to the worship of the Goddess Durga. This is the period, when her energy and power are worshipped. Each day is dedicated to a different appearance of Durga. Kumari, which signifies the girl child, is worshipped on the first day of the festival. Parvati, who is the embodiment of a young woman, is worshipped on the second day. The destructive aspects of Goddess Durga symbolize the commitment to acquire triumph over all the evil tendencies. Hence, on the third day of Navratri, Goddess Kali is worshipped, who represents the woman who has reached the stage of maturity.

Fourth to Sixth Days of NavratriWhen a person acquires triumph over evil tendencies of ego, anger, lust and other animal instincts, he/she experiences a void. This void is filled with spiritual wealth. For the purpose, the person approaches Goddess Lakshmi, to acquire all the materialistic, spiritual wealth and prosperity. This is the reason why the fourth, fifth and sixth day of Navratri are dedicated to the worship of Lakshmi - the goddess of prosperity and peace.

Although the individual has acquired victory over evil tendencies and wealth, he is still deprived of true knowledge. Knowledge is required to live the life of a humane, even though he/she is prospered with power and wealth. Therefore, Goddess Saraswati is worshipped on the fifth day of Navratri. All the books and other literature materials are gathered in one place and a 'diya' (earthen lamp) is lit in front of the deity, to invoke the goddess and seek her blessings. Till the time the books are kept at the puja room, the students would not study.

Seventh and Eighth Day of NavratriThe seventh day is dedicated to worshipping Saraswati, the goddess of art and knowledge. Prayers are offered with an aim to seek spiritual knowledge. A 'yagna' is performed on the eight day. This comprises of a sacrifice honoring goddess Durga as well as bids her farewell. The sacrifice or offering is made out of clarified butter (ghee), rice pudding known as kheer and sesame seeds.

Ninth Day of NavratriThe ninth day is the final day of Navratri celebrations. It is also known as 'Mahanavami'. On the day, Kanya puja is performed to worship nine young girls, who have not yet reached the stage of puberty. These nine girls symbolize one of the nine forms of goddess Durga. The feet of girls are washed to welcome the goddess and show respect to her. The girls are offered a set of new clothes as a gift from the devotees at the end of the puja.

Yes, we trained militants against India: MusharrafOctober 5, 2010 taken from Rediff

Pervez Musharraf has accepted that Pakistan trains militants to spread Terrorism in India. Now will Indian Govt. take up this issue with Pakistan and International community ? Or why Indian Govt. can't solve this problem on its own ? Also Musharraf has put up question of Kashmir in his speeches and interview, even though it is globally known that Kashmir is integral part of India. Will Indian Govt. ask Musharraf why he is putting up Kashmir Issue ?

Musharraf addresses a large gathering as he launches his new party in Birmingham

Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf has admitted that Pakistan had trained underground militant groups to fight in Kashmir, the first such admission by a top leader of the country.

Musharraf's remarks came days after he announced his return to active politics from London where he has been living in self-imposed exile.

"They (underground militant groups to fight against India in Kashmir) were indeed formed," Musharraf told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview.

Indian army soldiers stand behind seized under barrel grenade launchers after a gunbattle with milit

Asked why did Pakistan train militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir, the former President said Nawaz Sharif's apathy to the Kashmir issue was one of the reasons, so was the fact that the world had turned a blind eye to the dispute.

"Yes, it is the right of any country to promote its own interests... when India is not prepared to discuss Kashmir at the United Nations and is not prepared to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner," Musharraf claimed.

"The (Nawaz Sharif) government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir," he said. Musharraf indicated he had no regrets for the Kargil intrusion, that led to an armed conflict with India in 1999, and argued that each country had a right to promote its national interest.

Indian army soldiers stand behind seized ammunition from a militant hideou

Musharraf slammed the international community, particularly the West, for persistently ignoring the Kashmir issue, and for singling out Pakistan for all blames.

"The West was ignoring the resolution of the Kashmir issue, which is the core issue of Pakistan. We expected the West -- especially the United States and important countries like Germany -- to resolve the Kashmir issue," he said.

"Has Germany done that?" the former Pakistan military ruler asked.

Musharraf launched his political party the All Pakistan Muslim League in London and announced his intention to contest the 2013 election.

Indian policemen look out from the window of the hotel where suspected militants had holed up

"The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir? Nobody was bothered that Pakistan got split in 1971 because of India's military backing for Bangladesh. The United States and Germany gave statements, but they didn't mean anything," he said.

Musharraf, who overthrew Sharif's government in a bloodless coup in 1999, had also as army chief presided over the Kargil misadventure that had threatened to scale up into a full-fledged war between India and Pakistan.

Musharraf charged the international community of courting India for strategic deals, while treating Pakistan as a rogue state.

"Everybody is interested in strategic deals with India, but Pakistan is always seen as the rogue," Musharraf said.

The former Pakistan ruler also said the worst blunder of the US would be to quit in Afghanistan without winning. "Then militancy will prevail not only in Pakistan, India and Kashmir, but perhaps also in Europe, the United Kingdom and in the United States. That's my belief," he said.

Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan

Musharraf dubbed disgraced nuclear scientist A Q Khan as "characterless" and rejected his claims that Pakistani army had monitored and organised clandestine atomic deals with countries like Iran and North Korea.

"Mr (A Q) Khan is a characterless man," Musharraf said, when asked about the Pakistani nuclear scientist whom he had put under house arrest on charges of proliferation of nuclear technologies to 'rogue' countries like North Korea and Iran.

On Khan's claims that the Pakistani army monitored and organised such nuclear deals, he said: "That is wrong, absolutely wrong."

"I would be a traitor if I had ever given our nuclear weapons to the United States. This capability is our pride and it will never be compromised," he said.

Khan, considered a pioneer of the Pakistani nuclear programme, had also claimed that he was forced to confess his role in nuclear proliferation by the then military regime.

Musharraf, who is living in London on self-imposed exile, said the days of the army rule in Pakistan are over.

"Whenever the country is in turmoil, everybody looks to the army. But I would suggest that the times of military coups in Pakistan are over. The latest political developments have shown that the Supreme Court has set a bar on itself not to validate a military takeover," he said.

"We poisoned Pakistani civil society for 10 years when we fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was jihad and we brought in militants from all over the world, with the West and Pakistan together in the lead role. After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the West left Pakistan with 25,000 'mujahideen' and Al Qaeda fighters, without any plan for rehabilitation or resettlement," he said.

Blaming the West for the present 'fundamentalism' in the country, he argued: "Now you expect Pakistan to pull out a magic wand and make all of this suddenly disappear? That is not doable -- this will take time."

Musharraf said the West has made three blunders so far. "After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, they abandoned the region in 1989," he said.

"Then, after 9/11, they fought the Taliban instead of strengthening the Pashtuns who could have taken on the radical Taliban. Now you try to negotiate with so-called 'moderate Taliban' but there is no such thing as a moderate Taliban. There are Taliban and Pashtuns.

"But as I have always said: All Taliban are Pashtun, but not all Pashtun people are Taliban. Again, you should reinforce the ancient Pashtun clans who are not ideologically aligned with the Taliban to govern Afghanistan and to fight the Taliban. That's my strong advice," he said.

The fourth and "worst blunder" would be to quit without winning, Musharraf said. "Then militancy will prevail not only in Pakistan, India and Kashmir, but perhaps also in Europe, the United Kingdom and in the United States. That's my belief," he said.

Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, in a speech to the Legislative Assembly on Oct. 6, literally threatened to reopen all issues relating to the State's Accession to India in 1947, knowing full well that this was signed by the only competent authority of the time, Maharaja Hari Singh. The maharaja's action was backed by all sections of society, Omar Abdullah's grandfather, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the tallest leader of Kashmiri Muslims those days.

Mr. Omar Abdullah told the Legislative Assembly 2010 in Srinagar that J&K's accession to India was conditional, and that there was no merger with the Union of India. His comparison with Hyderabad and Junagarh cannot be taken lightly because the young Chief Minister seems to be having a hidden agenda not different from that of the anti-India elements. Mr. Omar Abdullah has stressed the resolution of the unresolved issue, forgetting that Parliament of India in its unanimous resolution in 1994 had categorically defined the issue - the liberation of entire POK including Gilgit-Baltistan from the illegal occupation of Pakistan . Omar Abdullah deliberately ignored this.

The Chief Minister also failed to explain that the unconditional Accession of 1947 was ratified by his grandfather in the Constituent Assembly, and it was the Constituent Assembly of India which made J&K an integral part of the Union by putting the State under the cover of Article 370 at its very inception in 1950. Omar Abdullah also failed to appreciate that his grandfather in the Indira-Sheikh Accord in 1975 accepted to work as Chief Minister under the present constitutional arrangements. There remained no question mark on the issue of integration of J&K with the rest of country.

It is shocking that the State Chief Minister has emerged as spokesman of the Jamaat led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani by demanding that an Indo-Pak dialogue should include Kashmiris. What he means by Kashmiris has not been spelled out either. India has already rejected any tripartite talks and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has repeatedly invited Hurriyat leaders for a dialogue within the scope and limits of the Indian Constitution.

The Chief Minister has opened another Pandora's Box by telling the Union of India that he is not their 'puppet' and telling the Centre that development in J&K is not the interest of the people there, forgetting that he regularly comes to Delhi with a 'begging bowl' demanding a special package to add to their loot.

The Chief Minister has forgotten the magnanimous Central aid that Dr. Manmohan Singh released in favour of the earthquake victims in Tangdhar region of Kashmir . Recently, the Centre again dispatched Rs.100 crores for the Valley. Omar Abdullah has forgotten that the Kashmir Valley is running on 90% financial aid from the Centre. His rejection of the Rajiv-Farooq and Indira-Sheikh Accords of 1975 and 1987 show the bankruptcy of his thought. Omar Abdullah would not have figured anywhere in the J&K power house if Sheikh Abdullah was not drafted as Chief Minister in 1975 and Farooq Abdullah was not crowned Chief Minister in 1987 by Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, respectively.

The Chief Minister's exclusive thrust on the so-called 'autonomy' for what he called sub-regions of Poonch and Doda smacks of an attempt to revive the 'Owen Dixon Plan' to divide the State of J&K on communal lines, a line rejected by the Indian leadership right from Jawaharlal Nehru to Dr. Manmohan Singh. The Dixon formula was presented on American sponsorship to bail out Pakistan from the Resolution of UNCIP, dated 13 August 1948, which had directed Pakistan to withdraw all its civilian settlers and armies from the entire occupied areas, including Gilgit. Dixon suggested in 1951 that the Resolution had become irrelevant and hence J&K should be divided on communal lines as mentioned above. This was why Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had to dismiss Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 and send him to jail.

Omar Abdullah's speech in the House is intriguing, undesirable, and violative of the constitutional mandate every Chief Minister has to follow. The Chief Minister has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India, and by declaring that J&K is not an integral part of India , he has violated the law of land, which cannot be ignored by South and North Blocks.

Unfortunately, the Chief Minister also tried to compare the prevailing situation in Manipur and Nagaland with the situation in Kashmir, demanding lifting of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from the Valley, forgetting that J&K is under the threat of armed infiltrators and terrorists backed and sponsored by ISI, as publicly admitted by General Pervez Musharraf, former President of Pakistan.

Worse, he has levelled serious and uncalled for allegations against the Union Home Secretary saying, "I have a grievance. There have been some instances where people have talked more than needed. The Union Home Secretary (G.K. Pillai) should not have spoken about curfew." The accusation that the Union Home Secretary tried to undermine the institutions of the State by asking schools to reopen and suggesting lifting of curfew deserves serious attention from New Delhi ; it was unbecoming behaviour by the Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister has targetted Governor N.N. Vohra; CRPF chief Srivastava who has been dislodged to please him; the Chief Secretary of J&K and the Director General of J&K Police. But changing of Governor will not change the existing situation because the entire anarchy, curfew and bandh culture in the Kashmir Valley draws legitimacy from the Chief Minister. Otherwise why did everything stop, including the stone-pelting in the Kashmir Valley , when the Assembly began last week? Let all who claim to be experts on Kashmir answer if Syed Ali Shah Geelani has found a faithful successor in the Abdullah's family after all.

Prof. Bhim Singh is Chairman, J&K National Panthers Party & Member, National Integration Council

Thursday, October 7, 2010

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which heralded the movement of Ramjanmbhoomi temple through the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, is happy with the Ayodhya judgement of Lucknowbench of Allahabad high court but is showing restraint in its public utterances. They know triumphalism will mar the positive elements of the judgment. In an exclusive interview with rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt, RSS's executive council member Ram Madhav emphasised on using the judgement for strengthening national integrity but avoided agreeing to building a mosque and a temple at the same site. RAM MADHAV- National Executive Member, RSS

This judgement seems to have divided the country once more.We consider the judgement as a wonderful opportunity to come together and facilitate building of a great temple in Ayodhya. Far from dividing the country the judgement will help us come close, again. We request all Indians including our Muslim brothers to follow the spirit of the judgment and help build a Ram temple. The rest of things can be discussed.Do you find judgment more than your expectations?Our stand has been consistent that a matter of faith is better solved outside of the judicial purview. We never had any expectations, per se.Having said it I will only add that all the points we used to raise including the fact a temple was demolished before construction of a mosque and the fact that Ram was born there and the presence of a Ram Lalla temple and ownership of the Deity Ram has been accepted by the court in its verdict.There are critical comments about the issue of giving legal endorsement to the precise place where Ram was supposedly born thousands of years ago. How will an educated and scientific mind accept it? I hope you are not saying that judges are not educated or do not have a scientific mind.Of course not! This comment is for sake of argument and understanding.Let me answer your question. I think you have not read the judgement.The judges have not said anything to that effect. They have said that one of the references before the court was that if Hindus always revered that place as the birthplace of Ram. The judges said, yes, historically Hindus believed that it's the birthplace of Ram. The judges never said that the court is saying it's the birthplace of Ram. That is the historical fact. The judges are projecting it as an historical record.What would be the long-term effect of the judgment?I repeat if all the parties follow the spirit of the judgement…What is the spirit of the judgment?The spirit of the judgment is that there was a temple before the construction of a mosque, there was a deity of Ram Lalla and crores of Hindus historically believed that place to be the birthplace of Ram. Ram Lalla should be allowed to continue at that place and that the central (central dome of the demolished mosque) area should be given to Hindus.If everybody accepts these parts of the judgment then other issues can be easily be sorted out through discussion. It will pave way for greater integration and a strong Bharat. The only rider is that we all should accept the theme of the judgement.So, you obviously don't see it as a judgement of faith or as some say panchayati-style justice.You know people are free to criticise the judgement. As far as we are concerned the judges have scrupulously gone into the matters referred to them. They have gone by the evidence put before them. There were witnesses, archaeological and historical evidence. It's a well-thought out judgement. There are certain grievances but that can be addressed. Just look at the nation's response.But there is a strong feeling that this is more like a compromise and a kind of arbitration.Why use words like compromise? We don't see that in this judgement that someone is a victor and someone is a loser. This judgement is a great source of integration because everybody is victor and if any complaints are there it can be sorted out.It's a clever statement by you. Now, that you have won you are saying so. All these years you never believed in court verdicts in matters like this. Now you are demanding that everyone should respect the court verdict. That's opportunism.All of you were nagging us to respect the judgement before it came. Now, we are respecting it, you still have a problem. If this judgement had gone against us you people would have sat on our throat to force us to accept it. Now that it has come in our favour we are saying let's accept it to move India forward. What's your problem? This is weird logic when we are accepting the judgment. We always maintained that issues like faith are better settled outside the purview of the courts. We said that legislation is a better option.Some people are now afraid that there could be anarchy if any movement is launched for Kashi and Mathura.But you know there is a law called Places of Worship Act 1993. Which categorically says that the status quo of August 15, 1947 applies to every other places of worship accept Ayodhya. Which court would accept the case for any other place of worship, tell me? But you can't stop anybody from approaching the judiciary.So what should be the action plan for creating a platform for reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims in the Ayodhya case? First and foremost, it should be left to the parties concerned. We and even the media should keep off. They are capable people on both sides. Let them talk.One hurt that Muslims have is that indirectly or unknowingly the judgement is diluting the demolition of Babri mosque in 1992.See you can't be selective in history. The first demolition was in 1528 followed by several events. That's why RSS chief Mohan Bhagwatji has said clearly that let's not waste this opportunity by looking back at what happened in history.I must tell you if you talk about history, one group has one grievance, the other group has other grievances. So let us overcome our historical grievances and take this opportunity to unite. Please don't be selective about history.You can't talk about 1992 only. Then, talk about different dates. In this particular case you have to start from 1528. The judges have started seeing things in the case from 1528. But now we say look forward. Why can't you stop seeing the judgement merely as a Hindu and Muslim issue?See it as the case for national unity.What kind of feedback you have got from all over the country?There is a widespread sense of happiness and relief that finally we have reached a good conclusion. Now it's time that we all come together and move ahead respecting the spirit of the judgement. I must tell you I have got responses from Christians and Muslims too. They say that let temple come up now. Leave behind this issue and discuss the issues concerning our country.Do you acknowledge that there is a feeling of disappointment among Muslims?Certain sections will always be disappointed. But I would say broadly the country is satisfied.Okay. So you think, on one third of land that Muslims have a mosque can be built and in the rest of the land a temple can be built, right? That question regarding the one-third land will have to be asked to Muslim parties. What they want to do you better ask them. Some of them are saying they don't want it. Our view doesn't matter in this.Yes, but you don't have any problem if mosque and temple co-exist which is in the spirit of this judgement?You have not read the judgement. The spirit of the judgment is what I have said few minutes back. The one-third of land is given to the party whose plea is dismissed. It's dismissed by a judicial authority. It is a legally untenable judgment!I am not going to comment on that because land is given to the party that doesn't want it. They have said it. I am saying that they don't want 33 percent of land given to the Sunni waqf board. Their case for title of the land has been dismissed. It's a tricky legal issue.